The six other questions were about whether or not I lied on each of the six part questionnaire which I replied "No". Just wanted to clarify that part. Thanks

It would seem that this type of test would be preferable for polygraphers, because countermeasures like those in TLBTLD would not be effective due to the lack of control questions.  Or are there indeed countermeasures for this type of test?

Yes, but wouldn't the polygrapher interpret two or three contrived reactions to mean deception for the respective questions?  That would be the most logical conclusion, in my opinion.

Unless I'm overlooking something, attempting countermeasures for this type of test would be shooting yourself in the foot, since each question is a "relevant" question, so to speak.

Perhaps I'm overlooking something obvious, but it seems to me that a polygrapher would detect a "lie" by comparing a strong physiological reaction on one question to a series of weak reactions on the rest of the questions.  For example, if the following five questions were asked:

#1 - Did you lie in describing your prior employment?
#2 - Did you lie in describing your prior drug use?
#3 - Did you lie about any thefts?
#4 - Did you lie about any serious crimes you may have committed?
#5 - Did you lie about violating anyone's civil rights while in your custody?

And a subject had been truthful with all information except his prior drug use, it would stand to reason that his response to question two would stand out on the chart ("peak of tension") compared to the rest of the questions.  Therefore the "control" is the baseline established by the other four questions.  And it would be expected that regardless of how many times these questions were asked of the subject, the results would likely be the same.

Now if a subject is asked this series of questions two times, your suggested countermeasures include producing a deceptive response (i.e. using countermeasures, "puckering", etc.) to one or two other questions.  Lets say round one went like this:

#1 - no countermeasure
#2 - lie
#3 - countermeasure
#4 - no countermeasure
#5 - countermeasure

and round two went like this:

#1 - countermeasure
#2 - lie
#3 - countermeasure
#4 - no countermeasure
#5 - no countermeasure

Then couldn't a polygrapher say that the subject was deceptive on all questions except question 4?  Certainly deception would be easy to discern with regards to the drug use question (question #2).  Using countermeasures as you've described for this "peak-of-tension" test really just relies on trying to confuse the examiner (by producing false-positives), but if it's really that subjective, couldn't he say that the subject showed deception on all but one question, and that he consistently showed deception about drug use?

I've never taken a polygraph, but I will be taking one soon.  I really don't have anything to hide, so I haven't decided whether or not I'll use countermeasures.  I have confidence the use of countermeasures in the control-relevant examination.  But I am unconvinced that countermeasures can be reliably used in the peak-of-tension test.  I don't trust polygraphy 100% either, but I don't see why polygraphers don't use the peak-of-tension test to combat countermeasures more than they do.

It appears plausible to me that only a person withholding information would wantonly countermeasure this format, considering it was properly constructed and administered.

When the test is properly constructed and administered, it may be scored in a manor that could prevent, if not eliminate, any countermeasure attempts.

Quote:


Dr. Barland,
Aren't you on record as saying methodology exists to detect the countermeasures taught in TLBTLD?  If so, you'll pardon my skepticism of your current comments, as I have personal experience regarding the accuracy of those prior statements.

I'm almost curious as to how much the R/I's "toughness" depends upon you telling everyone it's a "tough test to beat".

Regardless, as you point out, reactions to specific questions is one criteria for further inquiry.  Clearly, equal reactions employed on all questions would not only result in a chart that failed to meet this standard -- it would also make judgement regarding what is "significant" rather difficult, as well.

Skeptic

George,

I am in agreement that the use of polygraphs should be prohibited as a hiring practice.  I base this on the fact that polygraphs are not 100% accurate, and any margin of error could exclude a qualified candidate, or allow an unqualified person to get hired.  However, in my discussions with people that have undergone polygraphs, it is my unscientific opinion that polygraphs are generally accurate (more than 50%).  Of course there are always cases where polygraphs are dismally wrong.

The fact is that even though you and I, and others may feel that the polygraph is woefully unjust, inaccurate, and dehumanizing, polygraphy is a here for the time being, and any applicant such as myself must submit to it in order to secure the job of his choosing.  While your book is thorough with regards to discussion of the control/relevant test.  It is sparse with information for this type of test (Irrelevant/Relevant, peak-of-tension, or whatever), particularly in discussing possible counter-measures.  While your critique is primarily that this type of test has not had significant peer review or other academic scrutiny, again, the reality remains that this test is something that an applicant could realistically face.  And it seems to me that Dr. Barland is correct in his statement that this test is tough to beat.

Perhaps there is no effective way to employ countermeasures in this type of test.  In which case, you've done an outstanding job of research and discussion of countermeasures for the control/relevant test.  But if there is a way to sucessfully employ countermeasures for this type of test, please enlighten us.  I know that it is not your job to help others in this way, but you have obviously spent considerable time and effort researching polygraphy, and I and others look to you for information.  Your efforts are greatly appreciated.